I have been trying to respond to the controversy about Jeremiah Wright as a way to get back to posting on this site. However, I find myself so caught up in the details and complexities that everything I have written so far seems to dissipate into academic minutia. I know that no one wants to read that stuff.
So I looked at From the Wilderness, written by my friend Ryon Price. He tells the story of his reflections on this moment of public attention to race and preaching in an interesting way. He and I find ourselves in an unusual situation for white baptist ministers. We get called on to be mediators of black life for whites who wonder, marvel, and puzzle about race. We know we are not up to the task. My black friends describe the situation of being the lone black in a room full of whites and being put in the role of "Spokesperson for All Black People." As you can imagine, it is both an unfair and impossible spot to be in. So you can go ahead and recognize in advance that a white person serving as a surrogate in this role will be another step removed from being able to fulfill the duties and privileges of the office.
Having known of Rev. Wright for some time, I was very interested in the way he was being portrayed in the news. I was a bit upset that he was being treated so harshly. I went to hear his sermon clips, and I could not really find anything to argue with. His language is extravagant. He pushes his arguments to the next logical step, farther than most will. He does not hold back when he believes a wrong must be named. He uses stark images in framing a situation. But accompanying the diatribes was also a description of a loving, reconciling God. I didn't find him to be departing from a biblical perspective.
On the other hand, I think I would not necessarily use the same extravagant language. I would probably not carry an argument so far in certain contexts. I might feel compelled to hold back. My images might not be so stark. I can't help wondering if that is more a shortcoming on my part than a criticism of him.
Whites can understand his position--it is not inscrutable. It is, however, a serious challenge for people to get out of their limited experience and try to think from someone else's perspective. Ryon hits this on the head by denying the "it's a black thang" claim to incommensurability. Communication across group lines, across cultures, across frameworks is not theoretically excluded. It is excluded only practically--do we give it a serious effort. As our mutual friend Willie Jennings said to a group of white baptists, often a desire is missing among whites for cultural intimacy with their black neighbors. Without a longing to know one another and to be reconciled, most whites will simply see Wright as a crackpot or a demon.
How sports gambling blew up
7 hours ago
1 comment:
Hey, Mike! Glad to see you're back online again. I agree that the whole Wright controversy is so rich with nuance and complexity that I haven't dared try to respond for fear of falling woefully short in terms of a coherent response.
Like you, I don't really have any objections to the content of Wrights comments. On the contrary, I think the backlash that we're seeing in response tells us a lot more about the ignorance of the average Anglo-American regarding what's happening in the world and even within minority communities within our own country than it does about Wright himself.
Like you, I probably would have toned down my rhetoric and, perhaps, not pushed my points as far if speaking publicly on the same topics. But I also wonder if Wright himself might not have done the same if speaking in another context. Presumably his congregation, which he has pastored for decades, has a much stronger peace and justice orientation and a greater awareness of social issues than it's more conservative (and less informed) white counterparts. Thus, Wright's language and style was appropriate for the context because he was basically preaching to the choir, those who were already inclined to agree with his assessment of the situation anyway. Had he prepared a message for a more conservative or less informed audience, perhaps he would have approached the topic differently, used less inflamatory langauge and so forth.
The sad thing is that most of Wright's critics simply wish to silence him or write him off as a fringe lunatic rather than take advantage of the opportunity to engage in serious dialogue on self-reflection on the direction our country is headed.
Post a Comment